With the first Monday in October, we welcome back the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). By law, the first Monday in October is when the court commences its term, which will run until October of the following year, but in practice the term ends between June or July. As the term commences, we learn which cases SCOTUS will hear and will not hear in the coming months. Of the thousands of cases per year petitioning a writ of certiorari only a few hundred will be granted and thus heard throughout the term. In fact, the Court accepts 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year. To be granted a writ, only four of the nine justices need to agree to hear the case. A list of what the court will hear this term can be found here.
Some high-profile cases will be absent, notably a rehearing in United States v. Texas, the challenge to an Obama Administration policy that would have permitted as many as four million undocumented immigrants to apply for a program that would have allowed them to remain in the country and work here legally. The justices heard arguments in the case in April of this year, but in June they announced that they had deadlocked 4-4, an outcome that left in place the lower court’s decision striking down the policy. In July, the Obama administration asked the court to reconsider that ruling when it has all nine justices. The petition for rehearing was, as the federal government acknowledged in its filing, a long shot, and today the justices rejected it without comment.
Other cases that will not be considered include the trademark case of the Washington Redskins and the NCAA antitrust case.
The Washington Redskins asked the justices to review a decision by a federal trial court upholding the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s cancellation of the team’s trademarks prior to a final decision in the 4th Circuit.
The court also denied review in a pair of cases (NCAA v. O’Bannon and O’Bannon v. NCAA) arising out of a class action antitrust challenge to National Collegiate Athletic Association rules requiring college athletes to be amateurs. The lead plaintiff is Ed O’Bannon, a former professional basketball player who played on the UCLA team that won the national championship in 1995. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit agreed with the players that the ban on pay for athletes violated federal antitrust laws, and the NCAA asked the justices to weigh in, arguing that the 9th Circuit’s decision “threatens far-reaching deleterious consequences.” For his part, O’Bannon had challenged a portion of the 9th Circuit’s ruling that struck down the part of the trial court’s holding that would have allowed schools to give student-athletes, in addition to full scholarships, as much as $5000 per year in deferred compensation.
Read more at the SCOTUSblog.com.
With Justice Scalia’s seat still vacant and an even numbered court, it remains unclear how the court will handle some of the challenges it will face this term.